Older Patients' Perceptions of Medicines and Willingness to Deprescribe.

Introduction Major barriers in deprescribing are the ambivalence of patients, resistance to change, and poor acceptance of alternative treatments. Objective To investigate older patients' beliefs, understanding and knowledge, satisfaction with medicine use, health outcome priorities, their attitude toward deprescribing, and to identify associated patient factors. Methods This multi-center cross-sectional, semistructured survey study involved older outpatients (70 years of age and older) with polypharmacy. The survey comprised three validated questionnaires: Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire, Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing questionnaire, and the Health Outcome Prioritization tool, with additional questions about understanding and satisfaction. The association between questionnaire outcomes and patient characteristics was investigated. Results Fifty participants were included; they used an average of 9 (+/- SD 2.7) medicines. For most participants (82%), the necessity of using medicines outweighed their concerns. Participants could name 35% of their medicines and 43% of the indications. Overall, 76% were satisfied with the effect of their medicines, but 94% would be willing to stop their medication if advised by their doctor. Maintaining independence (46%) and reducing pain (31%) were the most important health outcome priorities reported by the patients; staying alive had the lowest priority (51%). Participants with higher levels of educational attainment had better knowledge and had more concerns about harmful effects. Conclusions Patients are open to deprescribing but would probably not initiate the conversation themselves because they are generally very satisfied with their medicines. Knowledge about their medicines and their indications is poor. If doctors initiate deprescribing, patients are probably willing to follow their advice. Patients' life priorities should be discussed in deprescribing conversations.

BCG vaccination and allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence on whether BCG vaccination might represent an effective primary preventative strategy against the development of allergic sensitization and disease. OBJECTIVES: We sought to systematically review the relationship between BCG vaccination and the risk of sensitization, eczema/atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, and other allergic conditions, such as food allergy and anaphylaxis. METHODS: Four international databases were searched for published epidemiologic or interventional studies. Additional online study databases were searched and vaccine manufacturers and a panel of international experts were contacted in an attempt to locate unpublished or ongoing studies. Quality assessment was undertaken by using internationally established criteria. Meta-analyses were undertaken by using fixed- or random-effects modeling. Funnel plots were used to assess for the risk of publication bias. RESULTS: We identified 767 articles, of which 17 satisfied our inclusion criteria; there was only 1 randomized controlled trial, with the remaining studies being epidemiologic investigations. Meta-analyses did not show any protective effect of vaccination against the risk of sensitization, as judged by specific IgE tests (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.60) or skin prick testing (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.67-1.13); the risk of atopic eczema/dermatitis (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.64-1.09); or the risk of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.89-1.28). BCG vaccination was associated with a protective effect against the risk of asthma (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.95), although this might be explained by publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: BCG vaccination is unlikely to be associated with protection against the risk of allergic sensitization and disease. The observed possible benefit in relation to the development of asthma is unlikely to be due to allergic sensitization.